I too agree. The more options the better. I don't hear anyone
complaining about too many options. Many of us want to use Rockbox
because it has so many options that the official firmware does not
have.

-eric

UF> Hello Daniel,

UF> Daniel Stenberg wrote on Monday, August 19, 2002, 3:43:18 PM:

DS>> I fear an option-overload if we don't make some sacrifices, that's
DS>> why I chose to sacrifice this. But certainly, if there's a demand
DS>> for an config option, we'll have an another config option!

UF> It would be nice if I could set this option, thanks.

UF> I don't think that more options make the menu too complex, one can
UF> arrange the menu items in logical submenus later so that the menu
UF> remains usable. But limitations in RTC (size) for example could
UF> generally be a problem.

UF> If some day there are too many options: One could separate the options
UF> that a user usually doesn't change when using RockBox and depend on
UF> the users opinion and make them configurable in a Makefile before
UF> compiling. The "1st file to play in shuffle mode" is one of these. So
UF> the menu is not overloaded and the people (like me) that want some
UF> "non-standard" behaviour can set this in a file and recompile it
UF> themselves.